(영문) 서울고등법원 2012. 07. 18. 선고 2011누24295 판결

The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s input tax amount as a taxable entrepreneur cannot be deducted or refunded as long as the Plaintiff conspireds with the malicious entrepreneur is not eligible for deduction or refund of the input tax amount related to the domestic tax transaction, is not applicable to the deduction or refund of the input tax amount in the judgment of remand. As stated in the reasoning of the judgment of remand, it cannot be accepted as it

Related statutes

Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Cases

2011Nu24295 Revocation of revocation of disposition of imposing additional tax, etc.

Plaintiff and appellant

XXS Co., Ltd.

Defendant, Appellant

Head of the tax office;

Judgment of the first instance court

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2005Guhap19979 Decided June 4, 2008

Judgment prior to remand

Seoul High Court Decision 2008Nu21999 Decided September 17, 2009

Judgment of remand

Supreme Court Decision 2009Du19304 Decided July 14, 201

Conclusion of Pleadings

May 23, 2012

Imposition of Judgment

July 18, 2012

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiff corresponding to the amount of the order for revocation below is revoked. A. The Defendant revoked on January 3, 2005 the part exceeding KRW 000 in the imposition disposition of Value-Added Tax for the second period of Value-Added Tax for the Plaintiff on January 3, 2005, exceeding KRW 00 in the imposition disposition of Value-Added Tax for the first period of Value-Added Tax for the year 2001, exceeding KRW 00 in the imposition disposition of Value-Added Tax for the second period of Value-Added Tax for the second year of 200, exceeding KRW 00 in the imposition disposition of Value-Added Tax for the second year

B. On March 1, 2006, the Defendant’s imposition disposition of value-added tax amounting to KRW 000 in excess of KRW 200 in 2001, exceeding KRW 000 in the imposition disposition of KRW 100 in 2002, exceeding KRW 00 in the imposition disposition of KRW 00 in 200 in 203, exceeding KRW 00 in the imposition disposition of KRW 1 in 2003, and exceeding KRW 00 in the imposition disposition of KRW 2 in 200 in 203.

2. The remaining appeal filed by the Plaintiff is dismissed.

3. 15% of the total costs of litigation shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of claim

On January 3, 2005, the Defendant imposed a value-added tax of KRW 000 on the Plaintiff in 200, imposition of KRW 000 on the second half-year value-added tax in 200, imposition of KRW 000 on the first half-year value-added tax in 2001, imposition of KRW 000 on the second-year value-added tax in 2002, imposition of KRW 000 on the first-year value-added tax in 2004, imposition of KRW 000 on the Plaintiff in 200, imposition of KRW 00 on the second-year value-added tax in 200, imposition of KRW 00 on the second-year value-added tax in 200, imposition of KRW 00 on the first-year value-added tax in 203, imposition of KRW 200 on the second-year value-added tax in 203, and imposition of KRW 00 on the second-year corporate tax in 2003.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff: The part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is accepted.

B. Defendant: The part against the Defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim corresponding to the revoked part is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Details of disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, a corporation established on June 23, 1993 and engaged in gold, silver and retail business, etc., reported and paid value-added tax and corporate tax from 2000 to 2003 business years from 2000 to 1st 2004.

B. On January 3, 2005, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office investigated the tax offense against the Plaintiff and notified the Defendant of the result. Accordingly, on January 3, 2005, the Defendant imposed value-added tax from January 1, 2000 to January 1, 2004, as stated in the notice for imposition of value-added tax on the Plaintiff. On March 1, 2006, the Defendant rendered an ex officio decision to increase or decrease part of the disposition on January 3, 2006, as stated in the notice for imposition of value-added tax as stated below, and on July 26, 201, the Defendant decided to reduce the amount of value-added tax on the Plaintiff’s item for imposition of value-added tax on July 26, 201 as stated in the notice for imposition of value-added tax on the following list, and on March 1, 2006, the Defendant finally made a decision to impose value-added tax on the Plaintiff for imposition of value-added tax for the following 20 years.

[Contents of Imposition of Value-Added Tax]

Year/Period portion

Disposition of imposition on January 3, 2005

The corrected tax amount on March 1, 2006

The reduced tax amount on July 26, 201

Final Tax Amount

200. 1

00 won

200. 2nd class

00 won

1. 1. 1

00 won

201. 2

00 won

202. 1

00 won

202. 2

00 won

203. 1

00 won

203. 2

00 won

204. 1

00 won

1) 원고가 2000년 제2기 ~ 2004년 제1기 부가가치세 신고를 할 때, 위 과세기간에 별지 '세금계산서 내역' 기재와 같이 XX쥬얼리 주식회사(이하에서는 회사를 표기할 때 '주식회사' 부분을 생략한다) 등 12개 업체로부터 합계 000원 상당의 지금을 매입하고 각 업체로부터 매입세금계산서 832장(이하 '이 사건 세금계산서'라고 한다)을 수취하였다고 하면서 이 사건 세금계산서상의 공급가액을 해당 과세기분의 매입세액 공제대상으로 하고, 또 2000 ~ 2003 사업연도의 법인세 신고를 할 때 이 사건 세금계산서상의 공급가액 상당액을 해당 사업연도의 손금에 산입하였다. 피고는 이 사건 세금계산서는 '사실과 다른 세금계산서'에 해당한다는 이유로, 이 사건 세금계산서상의 공급가액 상당액을 2000년 제2기 ~ 2004년 제1기 각 부가가치세의 매입세액 공제대상에서 제외하였다.

2) When the Plaintiff filed the return of value-added tax for the first period between the first period in 2000 and the second period in 2004, the Plaintiff filed the return of value-added tax for the first period in 2000 and the second period in 2000, the second period in 2000, the first period in 2001, the second period in 2001, the second period in 2000, the second period in 2000, the second period in 2000, the second period in 2002, the second period in 2003, the first period in 200, the first period in 200, the second period in 200, the second period in 203, and the first period in 200, the first period in 200, and the first period in 200, the amount of the Plaintiff filed the return of value-added tax for the first period in 200, including the output tax amount for the first period in 2000.

3) When the Plaintiff filed a return on the first and second returns on the value-added tax in 2001, the Plaintiff sales was omitted even if it sold the present amount equivalent to the total of KRW 000 in the first period of Taedong Unemployment in 2001, and the total of KRW 000 in the second period of 2001. The Defendant calculated the first and second returns on the value-added tax in 2001, included the omitted sales amount in the output tax amount for the pertinent taxable period.

4) When the Plaintiff filed a return of value-added tax for the first period of 1 to 204, 200 won for the first period of 200 won for the second period of 200, 000 won for the second period of 2000, 000 won for the second period of 201, 000 won for the second period of 2002, 00 won for the first period of 2002, 00 won for the second period of 2003, 200 won for the second period of 2003, 200 won for the second period of 2003, 200 won for the second period of 204, 200 won for the second period of 200, 200 won for the second period of 200, 2000 won for the second period of 200, 2000 won for the second period of 200, 201.

5) When the Plaintiff filed a return of value-added tax for the second period from the first period of 2002 to the second period of 2003, the Plaintiff sold 00 won for the first period of 2002, 2002 to the second period of 2002, and sold 00 won for the second period of 2003, 2000 won for the second period of 2003 to the second period of Y et al., and omitted sales even if the Plaintiff sold Y et al. for the second period of 2003. The Defendant included the sales amount in the output tax for the second period of 203 from the first period of 202 to Y et al. for the second period of 203.

C. On March 3, 2005, the Plaintiff requested a judgment to the National Tax Tribunal, and the National Tax Tribunal dismissed the request on September 11, 2006.

D. The Plaintiff asserted the illegality of the disposition of this case as to the portion of the imposition of value-added tax on the first half of 2000 to the first half of 2004 except for the portion of the imposition of value-added tax on the first half of 2004 (B-1) of the imposition of value-added tax on the tax invoice of this case (the imposition of value-added tax on the first half of 2000 shall not be related to B-1). However, the Plaintiff’s assertion on that part is dismissed in the judgment of the first instance court, and the Plaintiff’s appeal and appeal are dismissed in the judgment before remand and the judgment of remand before remand, the imposition of value-added tax on the first half of 200 shall be excluded from the object of the judgment of this court, and the corresponding amount of tax on the part other than B-1 of the disposition of this case shall be excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court

(unit, source)

Taxation Period

Final Tax Amount

Amount of tax excluded from adjudication

1, 200

00(excluding those subject to the entire adjudication on disposition)

200 No. 2

1, 2001

201

1, 2002

Second 2002

1, 2003

203

1, 2004

E. On January 3, 2005, the Defendant issued a disposition of imposition of corporate tax on January 3, 2005 and on January 3, 2005, as indicated in the notice of imposition of corporate tax for the business year 2000 and the business year 2003, and the Plaintiff filed a correction as described in the notice of imposition of corporate tax on March 1, 2006. The Plaintiff filed a claim for revocation of the disposition of imposition of corporate tax for the business year 2000 and 2003, and the first instance court declared that the portion exceeding the corporate tax stated in the notice of imposition of corporate tax for the business year 200 and 203, and both the Plaintiff and the Defendant filed an appeal and the Defendant filed a final appeal, but the final appeal was dismissed at the judgment of remand, and the Defendant thereafter reduced corporate tax in the amount as stated in the table of final tax amount as of July 26, 201. Therefore, the portion seeking revocation of the final tax amount indicated below is excluded from the disposition of imposition.

【Imposition of Corporate Tax】

Business year

Disposition of imposition on January 3, 2005

The corrected tax amount on March 1, 2006

Final Tax Amount

200

00 won

2003

00 won

Grounds for Recognition: Gap evidence Nos. 1, 12, 15, 16, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 59 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case refusing to deduct or refund the input tax amount based on the tax invoice of this case is unlawful because the tax invoice of this case is identical to the fact, while the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's seeking the deduction or refund of the input tax amount based on the tax invoice of this case is not allowed because it violates the principle of good faith

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

1) From May 1983 to May 1983, the Plaintiff’s representative director: (a) operated the wholesale company in the name of “△△△△△,” and (b) established the Plaintiff around June 23, 1993; (c) the Plaintiff grown into the wholesale company in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government with a store in 31-1, thereby growing to the domestic largest size; and (d) the current domestic sales unit price of the Plaintiff’s domestic sales unit was determined on the domestic sales unit price of other companies.

On the other hand, in around 199 to 200, the rightA was investigated as to cases where the value-added tax was evaded while it was illegally converted into domestic waters and sold as the raw materials purchased by WW, K, etc. for export from around 1999 to around 200.

2) 폭탄업체 II쥬얼리(대표이사는 우BB이고, 추CC가 운영하였다)는 CC무역으로부터 영세율로 지금을 매입한 다음 이를 수출용 원재료로 사용하지 않고 원고에게 2000. 10. 4.부터 2000. 12. 22.까지 21회에 걸쳐 매입단가보다 단가를 낮추어 합계 000원에 과세로 매출하면서 그 세금계산서를 교부하였고, 폭탄업체 MM무역(대표이사 추CC)은 CC무역으로부터 영세율로 지금을 매입한 다음 이를 수출용 원재료로 사용하지 않고 원고에게 2000. 7. 5.부터 2000. 9. 28.까지 53회에 걸쳐 매입단가보다 단가를 낮추어 합계 000원에 과세로 매출하면서 그 세금계산서를 교부하였고, 폭탄업체 DD쥬얼리(대표이사 김DD)는 원고 및 SS상사로부터 영세율로 지금을 매입한 다음 이를 수출용 원재료로 사용하지 않고 XX쥬얼리(대표이사 박EE은 바지사장이고, 김FF가 실제로 운영하였다)에게 매입단가보다 단가를 낮추어 과세로 매출하고, 과세도관업체 XX쥬얼리는 원고에게 2000. 7. 1.부터 2000. 12. 29.까지 30회에 걸쳐 위와 같이 과세로 매입한 지금을 합계 000원에 과세로 매출하면서 그 세금계산서를 교부하였고, 폭탄업체 XX쥬얼리는 LL상사 주식회사 등으로부터 영세율로 지금을 매입한 다음 이를 수출용 원재료로 사용하지 않고 AA쥬얼리(대표이사 한GG는 바지사장이고, 김FF, 김DD 등이 실제로 운영하였다)에게 매입단가보다 단가를 낮추어 과세로 매출하고, 과세도관업체 AA쥬얼리는 JJ쥬얼리(당시 대표이사 이HH은 바지사장이고, 김FF, 박II 등이 실제로 운영하였다)에게 지금을 과세로 매출하고, 과세도관업체 JJ쥬얼리는 원고에게 2000. 9. 21.부터 2000. 12. 18.까지 34회에 걸쳐 위와 같이 과세로 매입한 지금을 합계 000원에 과세로 매출하면서 그 세금계산서를 교부하였고, 폭탄업체 PP금속(대표이사 정JJ)은 영세도관업체 BB가 원고 등으로부터 영세율로 매입한 지금을 다시 영세율로 매입한 다음 이를 수출용 원재료로 사용하지 않고 원고에게 2000. 10. 17.부터 2000. 12. 29.까지 51회에 걸쳐 매입단가보다 단가를 낮추어 합계 000원에 과세로 매출하면서 그 세금계산서를 교부하였다.

폭탄업체 AA쥬얼리(김FF 등이 실제로 운영하였다)는 XX쥬얼리로부터 영세율로 지금을 매입한 다음 이를 수출용 원재료로 사용하지 않고 원고에게 2001. 1. 9.부터 2001. 3. 31.까지 65회에 걸쳐 매입단가보다 단가를 낮추어 합계 000원에 과세로 매출하면서 그 세금계산서를 교부하였고, 폭탄업체 YY무역(대표이사 김LL은 바지사장이고, 김FF, 김DD 등이 실제로 운영하였다)은 원고로부터 영세율로 매입하거나 성명불상자부터 무자료로 매입한 지금을 XX쥬얼리 및 FF골드(대표이사 정MM는 바지사장이고, 양NN 등이 실제로 운영하였다)에게 과세로 매출하고, 과세도관업체인 XX쥬얼리는 원고에게 2001. 4. 2.부터 2001. 5. 22.까지 36회에 걸쳐 위와 같이 과세로 매입한 지금을 합계 000원에, 과세도관업체인 FF골드는 2001. 5. 23.부터 2001. 6. 30.까지 원고에게 30회에 걸쳐 위와 같이 과세로 매입한 지금을 합계 000원에 각 과세로 매출하면서 그 세금계산서를 교부하였고, 폭탄업체 PP금속은 영세도관업체 BB가 원고 등으로부터 영세율로 매입한 지금을 다시 영세율로 매입한 다음 이를 수출용 원재료로 사용하지 않고 원고에게 2001. 1. 3.부터 2001. 2. 15.까지 26회에 걸쳐 매입단가보다 단가를 낮추어 합계 000원에 과세로 매출하면서 그 세금계산서를 교부하였고, 폭탄업체 RR쥬얼리(대표이사 강OO는 바지사장이고, 추CC가 실제로 운영하였다)는 CC무역으로부터 영세율로 지금을 매입한 다음 이를 수출용 원재료로 사용하지 않고 원고에게 2001. 3. 8.부터 2001. 3. 27.까지 9회에 걸쳐 매입단가보다 단가를 낮추어 합계 000원에 과세로 매출하면서 그 세금계산서를 교부하였다.

폭탄업체 ZZ무역(대표이사는 염PP이나 추CC가 실제로 운영하였다)은 영세도관업체 QQ무역이 CC무역으로부터 영세율로 매입한 지금을 QQ무역으로부터 다시 영세율로 매입한 다음 이를 수출용 원재료로 사용하지 않고 원고에게 2001. 8. 16.부터 2001. 8. 31.까지 8회에 걸쳐 매입단가보다 단가를 낮추어 합계 000원에 과세로 매출하면서 그 세금계산서를 교부하였고, 폭탄업체 TT보석(대표이사 강SS는 바지사장이고, 김FF, 김DD 등이 실제로 운영하였다)은 김FF 운영의 AAA금은 등으로부터 영세율로 매입하거나 성명불상자로부터 무자료로 매입한 지금을 수출용 원재료로 사용하지 않고 매입단가보다 단가를 낮추어 FF골드에게 과세로 매출하고, 과세도관업체인 FF골드는 원고에게 2001. 7. 2.부터 2001. 10. 24.까지 87회에 걸쳐 위와 같이 과세로 매입한 지금을 합계 000원에 과세로 매출하면서 그 세금계산서를 교부하였다.

폭탄업체 EE쥬얼리(대표이사 이UU는 바지사장이고, 김FF, 박II 등이 실제로 운영하였다)는 영세도관업체 BBB금은(허VV, 김FF, 박II 등이 실제로 운영하였다)이 원고 등으로부터 영세율로 매입한 지금을 BBB금은으로부터 다시 영세율로 매입한 다음 이를 수출용 원재료로 사용하지 않고 매입단가보다 단가를 낮추어 CCC(대표이사 강II은 바지사장이고, 김FF, 박II 등이 실제로 운영하였다)에게 과세로 매출하고, 과세도관업체인 CCC은 원고에게 2002. 4. 10.부터 2002. 6. 29.까지 67회에 걸쳐 위와 같이 과세로 매입한 지금을 합계 000원에 과세로 매출하면서 그 세금계산서를 교부하였고, 폭탄업체 UU쥬얼리(대표이사 김QQ은 바지사장이고, 김FF 등이 실제로 운영하였다)는 김FF 운영의 영세도관업체 AAA금은이 원고 등으로부터 영세율로 매입한 지금을 AAA금은으로부터 다시 영세율로 매입한 다음 이를 수출용 원재료로 사용하지 않고 매입단가보다 단가를 낮추어 FF골드에게 과세로 매출하고, 과세도관업체인 FF골드는 원고에게 2002. 1. 15.부터 2002. 4. 10.까지 63회에 걸쳐 위와 같이 과세로 매입한 지금을 합계 000원에 과세로 매출하면서 그 세금계산서를 교부하였다.

The tax rate BB of Young-si Enterprise EEice purchased from the Plaintiff, etc. at zero tax rate, and then purchased from the Plaintiff, etc. at zero tax rate again, and sold to CCC a unit price lower than the purchase price. The CCC, which is a taxation-oriented enterprise, sold to the Plaintiff at zero tax rate on 12 occasions from July 2, 2002 to July 19, 2002, at zero tax rate, sold to the Plaintiff a tax invoice at zero billion won in total.

FFF amount (the representative director KimW is the president, and the citizen XX et al. actually operated) sold to the Plaintiff as taxation by lowering the unit price of the FF amount (the representative director is the Y president, HuV et al.) at a lower rate than the purchase price, and the FF amount, which is a taxation-oriented company, was sold to the Plaintiff at a tax rate of 00 won from April 1, 2003 to June 30, 2003, when it was purchased as above through 88 times from April 1, 2003.

FFF amount is sold to the Plaintiff as taxation by lowering the unit price of the purchase price at a price lower than the purchase price at the present time that he purchased without material from his name, and FF amount, which is a taxation-oriented company, from July 1, 2003 to August 20, 2003, was sold to the Plaintiff at 35 times as above and issued a tax invoice at KRW 000,000 in total, when he purchased with taxation as above, from July 1 to August 20, 203.

The Fjuice (Representative Kimbb) sold HHD as taxation by lowering the unit price compared to the purchase price at the present when it purchased from GGGju (Representative Director C), etc. HHD as tax-free, and HH HH, a taxation-free company, sells again to juice (Representative Director E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-N. The JJJ of the Raban company, as a tax-free company, sells KK KGK (Representative gg) as taxation by lowering the unit price at a lower rate than the purchase price at the present when it purchased from GGju, etc., and KK, a taxation-free company, again, sold to hhh (Representative Director Hh) tax-related business to MPju (Representative Director ii) and to 2010 through 30,000,000 among the Plaintiff, a taxation-free business entity, from 20, 2010 to 30,64,000).

As above, at least 90% of the Plaintiff purchased as a taxable tax between January 1, 200 and June 30, 2004, 109 tons of 109 tons or more, and the maximum purchase price continued to change on a three to six-month basis. The significant part of the transaction was bicycle future (the large wholesaler sold to the intermediate wholesaler at zero tax rate, the intermediate wholesaler’s sales at zero tax rate to the intermediate wholesaler, and the large coal wholesaler’s sales at zero tax rate to the other intermediate wholesaler, and the company sold to the large wholesaler by lowering the unit price, and the company sold to the large wholesaler, and the large wholesaler is taxable at zero tax rate, and the large wholesaler again sold at zero tax rate to the intermediate wholesaler and confirmed that the value-added tax collected from the State is to be refunded from the State).

3) 원고의 대표이사 권AA은 특정범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 위반(조세) 등으로 기소되어, 1심{서울중앙지방법원 2006고합1298, 2006고합1399(병합), 2007고합156(병합)}에서 김FF, 추CC, 우BB, 김DD, 한GG, 정JJ, 김LL, 양NN, 염PP, 강SS, 이UU, 박II, 강II, 김QQ, 김WW, 민XX, 허VV, 김aa 등과 순차로 공모하여 이 사건 세금계산서와 관련된 지금에 관한 일련의 거래에 있어서 위와 같은 지금 변칙거래의 방식으로 부가가치세를 포탈하였다는 등의 범죄사실이 인정되어 2007. 8. 24. 징역 7년 및 벌금 2,050억 원의 유죄판결을 선고받았고, 항소심{서울고등법원 2006노2975, 2007노1924(병합)}에서도 위 범죄사실이 인정되어 2007. 12. 6. 징역 8년 및 벌금 000원의 유죄판결을 선고받았으며, 그 후 상고심(대법원 2007도11258)에서 2008. 4. 24. 상고기각판결을 선고받았다.

Grounds for Recognition: Entry of Evidence Nos. 4, 5, 15, 44, 47, 49, 54, 55, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Article 15 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9911, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter “Framework Act on National Taxes”) provides that “A taxpayer shall perform his/her duty in good faith and sincerity when he/she performs his/her duty. The same shall also apply where a tax official performs his/her duty.”

This principle is naturally applicable to legal relations concerning value-added tax (Article 1 and Article 3(1) main text of the Framework Act on National Taxes). In a series of continuous transactions, where a malicious entrepreneur does not pay the value-added tax collected by him/her by attempting to make an abnormal transaction which is deemed only to evade value-added tax (hereinafter “illegal transaction”) from the beginning to the point of intent of evading value-added tax, and rather than to evade it, only through the method of evading value-added tax, if he/she knows that an exporter or a seller of zero-rate tax based on a purchase certificate (hereinafter “exporter, etc.”) had any unfair transaction prior to the former phase, seeking deduction and refund of the input tax amount is not allowed as contrary to the principle of good faith as stipulated in Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. The same applies to cases where the exporter, etc. did not know that such an unfair transaction occurred due to gross negligence (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2009Du13474, Jan. 20, 2011).

2) We examine the purchase of the tax invoice corresponding to the export transaction and the sales of zero-rate tax rate based on the purchase confirmation among the instant tax invoice. In light of the aforementioned transaction behavior, distribution channel, the period, volume and value of the Plaintiff’s transaction, the Plaintiff’s representative director’s career, and the result of the relevant criminal judgment, etc., it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that there was a malicious entrepreneur having maliciously engaged in an illegal transaction for the purpose of evading the output tax amount at the time of the series of transactions corresponding to the zero-rate tax rate based on the export transaction and purchase confirmation. The same applies to the case where the Plaintiff knew of the existence of a malicious entrepreneur as above, and that there was a malicious entrepreneur as to gold bullion transaction (the same did not know of gross negligence). The Plaintiff’s assertion of the input tax deduction and refund of the instant tax invoice corresponding to zero-rate tax rate based on the export transaction

3) On this issue, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s input tax amount as a taxable business entity may not be deducted or refunded as long as it was conspired with the malicious business entity. However, this argument does not comply with the legal principles as seen earlier, and that the principle of trust and good faith cannot be applied to the deduction or refund of the input tax amount related to the domestic tax transaction, as stated in the judgment of remand, and that it violates the binding force of the judgment of remand. In addition, the Defendant asserts that the input tax amount pursuant to the tax invoice that cannot be deducted or refunded pursuant to the principle of trust and good faith shall not be deducted or refunded from February 2, 2000 to February 2003 in addition to the instant tax invoice.

However, the argument is not only a assertion that violates the binding force of the judgment of remanding the case where "in doing the instant gold bullion transaction in accordance with the instant tax invoice, it is against the binding force of the judgment of remanding the case, and it is not consistent with the grounds for disposition and disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu3272, Feb. 11, 1997). The argument that the instant tax invoice is different from the fact is not maintained (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu3272, Feb. 11, 1997). It shall be dismissed, as it was asserted at the appellate court on the reversed and remanded case where approximately six years have passed after the instant disposition, as it constitutes the means

4) In full view of the facts without dispute, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 55, Eul evidence Nos. 61 and Eul evidence Nos. 61, the purchase details made by exporters, etc. during the period from February 2, 2000 to February 2, 2003 are the same as the following "purchase price" column, and the legitimate value-added tax (including additional tax) to be notified by denying the entry of the "Purchase price" column is the same as the entry of the "Purchase price" column as shown below, and the detailed calculation details are as follows (as long as the new rule applies, the imposition of additional tax is legitimate).

Value-added Tax

Business year

(1) Purchase price.

(B) Omission of Taxation)

(2) Tax amount (1)(*0.1)

(3) Fidelity in report.

(4) Good faith in payment.

(5) The notified tax amount (B++4)

2, 200

1, 2001

000

201. 2

000

1, 2002

202. 2

1, 2003

203.2

* A Political Tax Calculation Table (unit, won)

* Additional Tax shall be calculated on January 3, 2005 on the date of notification.

※ 매입세액 계산은 을 제2, 55호증을 기초로 작성되었고, 자세한 내역은 피고 2012. 6. 26.자 참고서면과 같다. 참고서면 첨부 참고자료 2의 영세율 매출 관련 부가가치세 매입세액 내역(2000년 2기) 10쪽 매입처 하단 아래에서 5째 줄부터 4째 줄까지 'OOO, PPP'는 'II쥬얼리'를 잘못 적은 것이고, 같은 쪽 아래에서 3째 줄부터 2째 줄까지 'QQQ, RRR쥬얼'은 'PP금속'을 잘못 적은 것이다.

5) Therefore, the final reasonable value-added tax amount calculated by applying the good faith principle to the amount already excluded from the disposition in the instant disposition and the amount of final value-added tax calculated by applying the good faith principle as seen in the preceding table is as indicated below. Of the instant disposition, the portion exceeding the money stated below’s final tax amount should be revoked illegally.

Taxation Period

The Disposition of this case

Amount of tax excluded from adjudication

Noticed Tax Amount of good faith

Final Tax Amount

200 No. 2

1, 2001

201

1, 2002

Second 2002

1, 2003

203

1, 2004

(unit, source)

3. Conclusion

In the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the above "final tax amount" shall be revoked, and the part exceeding the "final tax amount" in the disposition of this case shall be revoked. The remaining appeal filed by the plaintiff shall be dismissed.

심급 사건

-서울행정법원 2008.6.4.선고 2005구합19979

-서울고등법원 2009.09.17.선고 2008누21999

-대법원 2011.07.14.선고 2009두19304

서울고등법원 2012.07.18.선고 2011누24295

-대법원 2013.09.13.선고 2012두19564

참조조문